The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications for condonation of delay, while also emphasizing the need for a reasonable explanation for the delay and the distinction between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse' in condoning delays.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Y. S. Lohit, the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for review of the judgement and order dated 07.02.2023 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court dismissing Writ A No. 4433 of 2010 filed by the petitioners. The office has reported a delay of 174 days in filing the review application.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that while preparing arguments to be advanced in SLP (C) No. 00633/2023, the learned counsel for the petitioners came across the judgment in the case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow versus Akhilesh Kumar Khare and others, AIR 2015 SC 3473 rendered in the matter of daily wage employee of Lucknow University. Therefore, their Counsel withdrew the S.L.P. and it was dismissed as such on 10.04.2023. Much after 10.04.2023, they came to know that a person who was employed on daily wages and whose services were terminated in the year 2008, and whose writ petition and special appeal had been dismissed by this Court, had been paid back wages by means of an order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), with the approval of the Vice Chancellor. They also came to know that by means of the judgement and order dated 24.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 6680 (S/S) of 2007 filed by Srimati Anima Shukla, who was working on a non-approved post in self financed scheme in Lucknow University, this Court had ordered payment of dues of the petitioner.

4. It has been stated in the affidavit that there is sufficient cause to review the judgement dated 07.02.2023 but the petitioner no. 1, who is doing Pairvi was ill and, therefore, the petition could not be filed earlier.

5. A copy of pathological examination report dated 08.02.2023 of Dinesh Maurya and a copy of a prescription dated 17.03.2023 issued on a plain paper for treatment of Dinesh Kumar advising medication for seven days, have been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the application. Apparently, even after the pathological examination report dated 08.02.2023, the petitioner no.1 went to consult a doctor only on 17.03.2023 and the doctor advised medication for seven days only, which ended on 24.03.2023. There is nothing on record to indicate continuance of any ailment after 24.03.2023 till filing of the petition on 02.09.2023. Moreover, no circumstance has been pleaded which would give rise to a sufficient cause for the petitioner no. 2 having not approached this Court for filing the review application within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus there is absolutely no explanation for the delay.

6. In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the law regarding condonation of delay as explained in various precedents and summarized the same as follows:

“21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

(vi) It is to be kept